Xavier Hanin wrote:
On 7/19/07, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
do you think?
1. I'm actually automating my release notifications these days; one
advantage of a two week release cycle is it encourages you to do that. I
have a template txt file that gets all its ant properties expanded.
Things I expand include
-version number
-SVN commit number and full branch
-sha1 checksum of all artifacts
I still have to hand patch in the release notes from jira, but that's
about it.
What do you mean by release notifications? Is it the announcement? The
vote?
Something else?
work releases dont need a vote. they go out every second friday, so we
just ship an announcement with a change log and the checksums. The
template that gets created is something that can be edited before the
announcement goes out, but it means that I dont need to bother with the
work of creating checksums and other bits of consistency across the file.
I think announcement must be reviewed and discussed each time, to get
something accurate. So the advantage of property expansion is not
obvious in
this case IMHO. For the votes, indeed mails are very similar from time to
time, so automating them could be useful. So would the tasks documented in
the "making a release" documentation, like changing the html templates
titles. It doesn't take too long to do, but automating these steps would be
nice.
Regarding the text, I'd be far more enthusiastic about adoption. You
want people to be excited about downloading it, not scared. Certainly
we've been running the old release over 1.4.1-compatible files with no
obvious problems.
Indeed, we want people to be excited, not scared. But on the other hand we
haven't run much tests on this version, and we have introduced some changes
(like the relative path handling) which are likely to cause problems in
some
situation. Don't get me wrong, I like your words, but I feel like a strong
encouragement to try the version would be better suited for a beta version
than an alpha version. Maybe we should have labeled this version beta 1?
Anyway, maybe we could keep something slightly less strong than your
suggestion. Maybe just removing the "strongly" before encourage would be
ok.
sounds good to me. Like I say, I've been using the alpha-1 alongside
1.4.1; no problems so far, except I get told off for using old
configuration filenames
What do you guys think ?
Xavier
--------
This second release of Ivy in the Apache incubator is still an alpha
version, and
as such we do not guarantee any stability, especially of the API, until
the final
2.0.0 version ships. In practise, the ant tasks and core functionality
do appear
to be working, to the extent that the new version can be switched in
over the 1.4.1 release.
Key features of the 2.0.0-alpha-2 release are
* enhanced support for reading, Maven2 POM files
* cleaner code for easier developer participation
* Minor bug fixes as documented in Jira.
We strongly encourage all users of Ivy to try this new version, so that
any remaining compatibility
issues can be reported and resolved before the product is released.
Issues should be reported
to issues.apache.org/jira
----
--
Steve Loughran http://www.1060.org/blogxter/publish/5
Author: Ant in Action http://antbook.org/
--
Steve Loughran http://www.1060.org/blogxter/publish/5
Author: Ant in Action http://antbook.org/
